logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 132 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 6316 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Parties : Gugulothu Krishna Versus The State of Telangana & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P.V. Ramana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services I.
Date of Judgment : 17-03-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 - Section 167(2) -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. Catch Words:
- suspension
- charge memo
- charge sheet
- limitation
- reinstatement
- speedy trial
- human dignity

3. Summary:
- The petitioner challenged the continued suspension despite the absence of a charge memo or charge sheet within three months, invoking the Supreme Court’s directive in *Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India*.
- The respondents acknowledged the lapse but relied on a Division Bench decision directing review of suspension after three months.
- The Court examined the Supreme Court’s observation that Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. limits detention and, by analogy, should limit suspension when charges are not filed.
- It held that suspension cannot extend beyond ninety days without a charge memo or charge sheet.
- As no charge memo or charge sheet was filed, the respondents were ordered to review the suspension and reinstate the petitioner.
- The petition was disposed of with the direction to review the suspension order and no order as to costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in reviewing the suspension order dated 18.10.2025,in spite of not filing a charge sheet or charge memo against the petitioner within a period of three months as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India ((2015) 7 SCC 291).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no charge memo or charge sheet has been filed within three (03) months, the petitioner is entitled to be continued and reinstated in service. It is further submitted that similar orders have been passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in similar circumstances,by suspending the suspension orders.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that it is true that no charge memo or charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner in spite of lapse of more than three (03) months. However, she placed replied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in BuddanaVenkataMurali Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2015 (6) ALD 694 (DB)),wherein, after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudary (cited supra), the respondents therein were directed to review the suspension order after lapse of three months time. She also placed on record the order of this Court dated 20.11.2024 in W.P.No.29234 of 2024, wherein a similar direction to review the suspension order has been passed.

4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court observes that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudary(cited supra),has held as under:

               “20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.”

5. In view of the above, the respondents are required to review the suspension order of the petitioner if the charge memo or charge sheet is not filed within the period of ninety (90) days. Admittedly, in this case, no charge memo or charge sheet has been filed within the said period. Therefore, the respondents are directed to review the suspension order and reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, if the conditions for continuation of suspension do not subsist.

6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal